It makes a difference since making choices from within indicate that external factors such as how you describe nature, or God himself, cannot force you like a domino to fall if you yourself (the "I" you call the self) don't want to make that choice.

But what makes you want to want or not want to make choice x? Is there one 'you' deciding what the other 'you' is going to want or not want? If so, what makes that 'you' decide what the second to last 'you' will decide what the last 'you' is going to want?

You claim to understand what compatibalism is and to have avoided it.... butcha haven't. You're still in the Cartesian theater, I'm afraid.

Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It's a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don't submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, "wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they'll all see me as a hero, so, that's the best possible choice!"

Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he'd have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: It makes a difference since making choices from within indicate that external factors such as how you describe nature, or God himself, cannot force you like a domino to fall if you yourself (the "I" you call the self) don't want to make that choice.

Promethean75: But what makes you want to want or not want to make choice x? Is there one 'you' deciding what the other 'you' is going to want or not want? If so, what makes that 'you' decide what the second to last 'you' will decide what the last 'you' is going to want?

Peacegirl: That sounds schizophrenic! I don’t think that would hold up in a court of law. “It wasn’t this me that told the other me to pull the trigger.” lol

Promethean75: You claim to understand what compatibalism is and to have avoided it.... butcha haven't. You're still in the Cartesian theater, I'm afraid.

Peacegirl: I am not defining choices that are not OCD, addictions, or being forced at gunpoint as having a free choice. You’re wrong!

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It's a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don't submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

Peacegirl: His astute observations and his reasoning based on those observations was accurate.

Ecmandu: For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, "wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they'll all see me as a hero, so, that's the best possible choice!"

Peacegirl: No one can pick the worst possible choice. He would be picking the worst choice as his best choice in this situation to try to prove what he can’t.

Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he'd have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: What a joke! He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was saying!

Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It's a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don't submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

Peacegirl: He looked very carefully at his observations and inferences thereof.

Ecmandu: For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, "wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they'll all see me as a hero, so, that's the best possible choice!"

Peacegirl: It’s not important what they believe because, under the changes conditions, they won’t be able to take advantage of anyone or hurt them in any way. Eliminating harm is what this discovery accomplishes, nothing more.

Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he'd have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: What a joke! He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was saying!

Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!

Peacegirl,

People don't read books on message forums to engage in discussion or debate, they expect you to condense and defend it.

They might watch videos or read studies that are linked, but not whole books.

That's basic forum etiquette ...

As I pointed out, you're argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

You can't wiggle out of that.

It never occurred to you or the author, that the ONLY thing that matters to a large majority of people is the existence of freewill.

Ecmandu: Before I reply again about this, I want peacegirl to look at promethean 's post above this one. It's a really good response to you.

My reply to you peacegirl is this:

The problem with this author is a very common problem with most people putting forth an argument, they don't submit their argument by looking at the set of the argument acting upon itself.

This is called the self referential step.

Peacegirl: He looked very carefully at his observations and inferences thereof.

Ecmandu: For example:

What if someone thought your argument was absolutely true, but having freewill is the only thing that matters to them and brings them satisfaction, and then!! They realize, "wait! I can make freewill true just by always picking the worst possible choice, and I will be the defender of freewill for everyone, eventually, they'll all see me as a hero, so, that's the best possible choice!"

Peacegirl: How can people pick the worst possible choice when that is impossible to do? What you don’t understand is that people will be able to connive, cheat, and do any number of things to take advantage of others IF THEY WANT TO. But they won’t want to under the changes conditions of a no blame world. Eliminating all first blows is what this discovery accomplishes. That should make you overjoyed but instead I sense resentment.

Ecmandu: Your author never checked his own argument against its own set, and because of this, he wrote a failed argument. Had he checked it, he'd have seen the disproof and never would have published.

Peacegirl: He spent his whole adult life refining his discovery so that others could understand it. He knew what he was talking about!

Ecmandu: But instead, we are left with a nonsense book.

Peacegirl: A book you never read! Wow!

Peacegirl,

People don't read books on message forums to engage in discussion or debate, they expect you to condense and defend it.

Peacegirl: I have and I am, but it can’t be condensed to the point where it loses its cohesiveness.

Ecmandu: They might watch videos or read studies that are linked, but not whole books.

Peacegirl: I wonder what the famous philosophers would have felt about people skimming their work or reading cliff notes.

Ecmandu: That's basic forum etiquette ...

As I pointed out, you're argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

Peacegirl: How can that be when I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.

Ecmandu: You can't wiggle out of that.

Peacegirl: I just did.

Ecmandu: It never occurred to you or the author, that the ONLY thing that matters to a large majority of people is the existence of freewill.

Peacegirl: That’s because they think something is being taken away from them and they also want to take pride in their accomplishments which is not a bad thing as long as they know they didn’t accomplish anything of their own free will. Determinism is a threat for that reason but it need not be especially when the knowledge that man’s will is not free is the gateway that opens the door to world peace.

Ecmandu: The argument was never analyzing its own set upon itself.

This was an oversight of the author .

Peacegirl: There were no oversights.

Last edited by peacegirl on Mon May 06, 2019 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Ecmandu: As I pointed out, you're argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

Peacegirl: How can that be when I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.

--------------------------

Actually, you are telling people what to do. You're telling them that the only thing that means anything to them (freewill) can ONLY be demonstrated by making the worst possible decision every time! You are telling people that!!

Because the only thing they gain satisfaction from, is that freewill exists, and the only way they can prove freewill by your argument is to do what they know is the worst possible decision for themselves and others, they will hurt self and others to give themselves the greatest satisfaction.

HONESTLY!! Your guru did not run the set of his own argument upon itself to make his argument!

Your protestations are not arguments, they are merely protestations. They are far from proofs.

You know what else these people can do besides making the worst possible decision for themselves and others to prove freewill exists, they can laugh and call bullshit on all of this nonsense that you are spouting. And through their own freewill, can help construct a more peaceful species.

Ecmandu: As I pointed out, you're argument is instructing people who only gain satisfaction from the idea of freewill, to commit the worst possible actions upon themselves and/or others.

*Peacegirl: It is doing no such thing. All it’s doing is demonstrating why will is not free. Believing that will is free cannot affect the outcome when this principle is introduced.

Peacegirl: I’m not instructing anybody to do anything. If a person wants to believe in free will, he is free to do so just like people are free to believe the earth is flat when most of the world knows for a fact that it’s round.

--------------------------

Ecmandu: Actually, you are telling people what to do. You're telling them that the only thing that means anything to them (freewill) can ONLY be demonstrated by making the worst possible decision every time! You are telling people that!!

Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Ecmandu: Because the only thing they gain satisfaction from, is that freewill exists, and the only way they can prove freewill by your argument is to do what they know is the worst possible decision for themselves and others, they will hurt self and others to give themselves the greatest satisfaction.

Ecmandu: They aren’t proving anything at all because in their effort to show they can move toward dissatisfaction is in the direction of greater satisfaction which proves, once again, that their efforts are in vain.

Ecmandu: HONESTLY!! Your guru did not run the set of his own argument upon itself to make his argument!

Peacegirl: He was a visionary!

Ecmandu: Your protestations are not arguments, they are merely protestations. They are far from proofs.

Peacegirl: The only direction from here to there is the movement away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. What gives each person greater satisfaction each moment is unique to them. But one thing is certain, under the changes conditions they won’t be able to get greater satisfaction hurting others in any way because it will be the worst possible choice. You should be rejoicing!

Ecmandu: You know what else these people can do besides making the worst possible decision for themselves and others to prove freewill exists, they can laugh and call bullshit on all of this nonsense that you are spouting. And through their own freewill, can help construct a more peaceful species.

Peacegirl: I am not rebutting your use of the term free will. The author used it throughout the book to mean “of my own desire” but by now you should know that nobody does anything of their own free will.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Me!!!:

That's not a logical defense against my argument, that's just a brainwashed cult members assertion without supporting argument.

Ecmandu: Brainwashed cult? You’re out the door. It’s not only a logical defense, it’s been proven.

Ecmandu: You managed to avoid my best argument by ignoring and not addressing it head on.

Peacegirl: There’s nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists. Any effort to prove this is impossible because proof of free will requires you to go back in time, reverse what has already been done to show that you could have chosen otherwise. So any argument you make is certainly not an actual proof. I’m not telling you what to believe. If you think he was wrong then believe what you want.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Me!!!:

That's not a logical defense against my argument, that's just a brainwashed cult members assertion without supporting argument.

Ecmandu: Brainwashed cult? You’re out the door. It’s not only a logical defense, it’s been proven.

Ecmandu: You managed to avoid my best argument by ignoring and not addressing it head on.

Peacegirl: There’s nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists. Any effort to prove this is impossible because proof of free will requires you to go back in time, reverse what has already been done to show that you could have chosen otherwise. So any argument you make is certainly not an actual proof. I’m not telling you what to believe. If you think he was wrong then believe what you want.

That's a straw man argument. I'm a compatibalist. A compatibalist believes that in order to smoke a cigarette, that a cigarette must exist.

I am not making the freewill argument, I'm making the compatibalist argument.

And yes, you still haven't responded to my disproof through self reference yet.

peacegirl wrote:Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Me!!!:

That's not a logical defense against my argument, that's just a brainwashed cult members assertion without supporting argument.

Ecmandu: Brainwashed cult? You’re out the door. It’s not only a logical defense, it’s been proven.

Ecmandu: You managed to avoid my best argument by ignoring and not addressing it head on.

Peacegirl: There’s nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists. Any effort to prove this is impossible because proof of free will requires you to go back in time, reverse what has already been done to show that you could have chosen otherwise. So any argument you make is certainly not an actual proof. I’m not telling you what to believe. If you think he was wrong then believe what you want.

That's a straw man argument. I'm a compatibalist. A compatibalist believes that in order to smoke a cigarette, that a cigarette must exist.

Peacegirl: Strawman. A determinist believes the same yet doesn’t create an arbitrary definition of free will so they can hold people morally responsible which is an utter contradiction.

Ecmandu: I am not making the freewill argument, I'm making the compatibalist argument.

Peacegirl: I know that but can’t prove that we have free will. The fact that you know we can’t go back in time is not a strawman. It’s the only way proof can be obtained. Compatibilists can’t see their illogic due to an arbitrary definition of free will which they try to make compatible with determinism but it can’t be. You can’t have free will and no free will. They are opposites. They want to have their cake and eat it too! I know your ilk, you won’t let go for a minute to rethink your position even though it’s a semantic shift but does nothing to change the status quo of blame and punishment.

Ecmandu: And yes, you still haven't responded to my disproof through self reference yet.

Peacegirl: There is nothing self-referential about the truth of determinism.

Last edited by peacegirl on Tue May 07, 2019 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Me!!!:

That's not a logical defense against my argument, that's just a brainwashed cult members assertion without supporting argument.

Ecmandu: Brainwashed cult? You’re out the door. It’s not only a logical defense, it’s been proven.

Ecmandu: You managed to avoid my best argument by ignoring and not addressing it head on.

Peacegirl: There’s nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists. Any effort to prove this is impossible because proof of free will requires you to go back in time, reverse what has already been done to show that you could have chosen otherwise. So any argument you make is certainly not an actual proof. I’m not telling you what to believe. If you think he was wrong then believe what you want.

That's a straw man argument. I'm a compatibalist. A compatibalist believes that in order to smoke a cigarette, that a cigarette must exist.

I am not making the freewill argument, I'm making the compatibalist argument.

Peacegirl: Compatibilists can’t for the life of them see their illogic due to an arbitrary definition of free will which does nothing other than hold people responsible while trying to keep determinism intact. They want to have their cake and eat it too! I know your ilk, you won’t let go for a minute to rethink your position even though it’s a semantic shift but does nothing to change the status quo.

Ecmandu: And yes, you still haven't responded to my disproof through self reference yet.

Peacegirl: There is nothing self-referential about the truth of determinism.

This reply of yours is what's called a thread killer. It's so stupid, that nobody sees a point to reply anymore. Excepting this post to teach you another posting forum term.

peacegirl wrote:Peacegirl: No I’m not. Free will cannot be demonstrated because a person cannot pick the least preferable choice even in his effort to prove that he has free will. Ironic, isn’t it?

Me!!!:

That's not a logical defense against my argument, that's just a brainwashed cult members assertion without supporting argument.

Ecmandu: Brainwashed cult? You’re out the door. It’s not only a logical defense, it’s been proven.

Ecmandu: You managed to avoid my best argument by ignoring and not addressing it head on.

Peacegirl: There’s nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists. Any effort to prove this is impossible because proof of free will requires you to go back in time, reverse what has already been done to show that you could have chosen otherwise. So any argument you make is certainly not an actual proof. I’m not telling you what to believe. If you think he was wrong then believe what you want.

That's a straw man argument. I'm a compatibalist. A compatibalist believes that in order to smoke a cigarette, that a cigarette must exist.

I am not making the freewill argument, I'm making the compatibalist argument.

Peacegirl: Compatibilists can’t for the life of them see their illogic due to an arbitrary definition of free will which does nothing other than hold people responsible while trying to keep determinism intact. They want to have their cake and eat it too! I know your ilk, you won’t let go for a minute to rethink your position even though it’s a semantic shift but does nothing to change the status quo.

Ecmandu: And yes, you still haven't responded to my disproof through self reference yet.

Peacegirl: There is nothing self-referential about the truth of determinism.

Ecmandu: This reply of yours is what's called a thread killer. It's so stupid, that nobody sees a point to reply anymore. Excepting this post to teach you another posting forum term.

Peacegirl: Then the thread will die a natural death! But it is you that’s the poor loser, not me!

Last edited by peacegirl on Tue May 07, 2019 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

You see, everyone has the opportunity to resurrect a thread killer, to make the thread live again, but you just failed to do that.

If making the thread live again I have to agree with you, I’d rather the thread go bye bye!

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:Compatibilists cant for the life of them see their illogic due to an arbitrary definition of free will which does nothing other than hold people responsible while trying to keep determinism intact . They want to have their cake and eat it too

Compatibilism works perfectly well as long as neither free will or determinism are regarded as absoluteAs absolute free will would invalidate determinism and absolute determinism would invalidate free willWhat actually exists in reality is limited free will and limited determinism so compatibilism is the norm

peacegirl wrote:There is nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists

The freedom to make decisions between some possibilities is evidence that free will existsWhat does not exist though is absolute free will because there are restrictions on what decisions can be madeNot everything that is actually possible will always be considered because of moral or psychological objections

peacegirl wrote:Compatibilists cant for the life of them see their illogic due to an arbitrary definition of free will which does nothing other than hold people responsible while trying to keep determinism intact . They want to have their cake and eat it too

Compatibilism works perfectly well as long as neither free will or determinism are regarded as absoluteAs absolute free will would invalidate determinism and absolute determinism would invalidate free willWhat actually exists in reality is limited free will and limited determinism so compatibilism is the norm

It may be the norm to you, but it’s wrong. If you could not have done otherwise, could you have done otherwise? No.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:There is nothing to address if you begin with the premise that free will exists

Surreptitious: The freedom to make decisions between some possibilities is evidence that free will exists

Peacegirl: Being free to make decisions gives you the ability to choose without external force but you are controlled internally the minute you make a decision one way or the other, granting you no free will whatsoever

Surreptitious: What does not exist though is absolute free will because there are restrictions on what decisions can be madeNot everything that is actually possible will always be considered because of moral or psychological objections

Peacegirl: Just because a choice is available doesn’t make it possible in reality. If you are restricted due to moral or psychological objections, you are not free to choose freely because free will implies you can choose what is distasteful in spite of a better option in your eyes. IOW could you kill someone who did nothing to hurt you if you had the option not to kill? Show me how free you are. If you were free you could choose either option equally with no compulsion either way, which is impossible given my example.

﻿Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

peacegirl wrote:Being free to make decisions gives you the ability to choose without external force but you are controlled internally the minute you make a decision one way or the other granting you no free will whatsoever

You make a decision and then you choose to stick to it of your own free will so it is not something that is imposed Free will therefore does not invalidate the need to have to make decisions or else you would never make any at all

peacegirl wrote:If you are restricted due to moral or psychological objections you are not free to choose freely because free will implies you can choose what is distasteful in spite of a better option in your eyes

You cannot freely choose anything which violates your own moral code but you can everything elseFree will is therefore not absolute but conditional and it is within that domain that free will exists

What would a rock need... what kind of property... to have some freewill?

I say 'some' because it's become a trend around here to believe that people can have a little freewill rather than a lot... or be somewhat determined rather than completely. This is of course due to a misunderstanding of what 'absolute' means... and more importantly, when and to what it can be meaningfully applied. While I am baffled by this strange use of the concept, I'm obliged to play along at the moment and ask: what would it take for a rock to 'sorta' have freewill?